% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Elguindi:12508,
author = {Elguindi, N. and Clark, H. and Ordonez, C. and Thouret, V.
and Flemming, J. and Stein, O. and Huijen, V. and Moinat, P.
and Inness, A. and Peuch, V.-H. and Stohl, A. and Turquety,
S. and Cammas, J.-P. and Athier, G. and Cammas, J.-P. and
Schultz, M.},
title = {{C}urrent status of the ability of the {GEMS}/{MACC} models
to reproduce the tropospheric {CO} vertical distribution as
measured by {MOZAIC}},
journal = {Geoscientific model development},
volume = {3},
issn = {1991-959X},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {Copernicus},
reportid = {PreJuSER-12508},
pages = {501 - 518},
year = {2010},
note = {This research was carried out as part of the GEMS project,
which was funded by the European Commission under the EU
Sixth Research Framework Programme, contract number
SIP4-CT-2004-516099 and the MACC project, which is funded by
the European Comission under the EU 7th framework programme
(Grant agreement 218793). The authors acknowledge the strong
support of the European Commission, Airbus, and the Airlines
(Lufthansa, Austrian, Air France) who carry free of charge
the MOZAIC equipment and perform the maintenance since 1994.
MOZAIC is presently funded by INSU-CNRS (France),
Meteo-France, and Forschungszentrum (FZJ, Julich, Germany).
The MOZAIC data based is supported by ETHER (CNES and
INSU-CNRS).},
abstract = {Vertical profiles of CO taken from the MOZAIC aircraft
database are used to globally evaluate the performance of
the GEMS/MACC models, including the ECMWF-Integrated
Forecasting System (IFS) model coupled to the CTM MOZART-3
with 4DVAR data assimilation for the year 2004. This study
provides a unique opportunity to compare the performance of
three offline CTMs (MOZART-3, MOCAGE and TM5) driven by the
same meteorology as well as one coupled atmosphere/CTM model
run with data assimilation, enabling us to assess the
potential gain brought by the combination of online
transport and the 4DVAR chemical satellite data
assimilation.First we present a global analysis of observed
CO seasonal averages and interannual variability for the
years 2002 2007. Results show that despite the intense
boreal forest fires that occurred during the summer in
Alaska and Canada, the year 2004 had comparably lower
tropospheric CO concentrations. Next we present a validation
of CO estimates produced by the MACC models for 2004,
including an assessment of their ability to transport
pollutants originating from the Alaskan/Canadian wildfires.
In general, all the models tend to underestimate CO. The
coupled model and the CTMs perform best in Europe and the US
where biases range from 0 to $-25\%$ in the free troposphere
and from 0 to $-50\%$ in the surface and boundary layers
(BL). Using the 4DVAR technique to assimilate MOPITT V4 CO
significantly reduces biases by up to $50\%$ in most
regions. However none of the models, even the IFS-MOZART-3
coupled model with assimilation, are able to reproduce well
the CO plumes originating from the Alaskan/Canadian
wildfires at downwind locations in the eastern US and
Europe. Sensitivity tests reveal that deficiencies in the
fire emissions inventory and injection height play a role.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {IEK-8},
ddc = {910},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013},
pnm = {Atmosphäre und Klima / MACC - Monitoring Atmospheric
Composition and Climate (218793)},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK491 / G:(EU-Grant)218793},
shelfmark = {Geosciences, Multidisciplinary},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000285965100010},
doi = {10.5194/gmd-3-501-2010},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/12508},
}